This Is The Face Of Obamacare

[Playinghardball]

Any questions?


Found on Facebook

[onehandle]

1. Get a job, Hippie!

But seriously, imagine the ads that could be made if children lose.

[CAPHAVOC]

2. If the SCOTUS

Does not kill Obamacare we are History. Even if it is repealed. Whoever is in control of the Federal Government will be able to order you to do anything. You can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye. It will be a game changing precedent and the gateway to totalitarian and unlimited Federal Power. Nothing they do could ever be considered unconstitutional if framed in the right manner. Repealing it would not change the underlying law.

[Walk away]

4. It's a mandate to pay health care not a mind control chip...

You pay taxes don't you? And you have to pay them whether you can afford them or not. When you pay taxes you are paying for other peoples educations, health care and everything else.

Your over reaction is Fauxnewsian!

[Warren DeMontague]

39. No shit.

[CAPHAVOC]

51. But

It seems to me like a merging of the power of the Federal Government with several of our Mega-Corporations. I don't like the idea. Corporations should have to fend for themselves.

[Walk away]

52. Look, if there was a chance of us having single payer it is long gone. We will be lucky...

to retain control of the Senate and the office of President. Congress and the Supreme Court will never let that happen so if you have the stomach to watch people suffering because you don't like corporations then fine. Let it be, let $30,000,000 Americans be at risk of losing everything including their lives. Let's be pure about it for another decade or so.

[CAPHAVOC]

62. Nobody is going to vote Romney.

He will lose as bad as Dukakas. ACA was 2 years away. By then if promoted we could get Medicare. Even before then. Everyone likes it. The GOP is terrified on Medicare. We just need to bust the Democrats loose from the K Street Insurance Lobby. That is the problem. They complain about them on TV and then cut back room deals and let them write the Bill.

[Walk away]

69. We will never have instantaneous Medicare for all. It may take decades.

Even the most optimistic experts believe that we will have segments of the uninsured or uninsurable population brought into the system one group at a time. Meanwhile, 50,000,000 people wait, suffer, go undiagnosed and die.

[drm604]

18. Today I'm suddenly seeing this idea posted in numerous places.

The claim is that, because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (not "Obamacare&quot horrible things may happen if someone else eventually gets power.

Honestly, it sounds like an organized talking point to me, especially because of the way it's suddenly appeared.

I don't think you need to worry about this. You're being misled. Where did you hear it?

[Pachamama]

27. Sorry Capt Havoc...you couldnt be more wrong....

If you are paranoid of Govt control, be more concerned about far greater things....

You may be a "recovering Repuke" as your profile claims since you joined DU last month, but if your worry is the Obamacare destroying the Bill of Rights, why werent you on DU when the Bush Administration declared warrantless wiretapping, renditions, waterboarding as enhanced interrogation, enemy combatant status, etc, etc....

Your concern for the Bill of Rights seems highly misplaced....if I was living in Floriduh (as your profile states), i would be more concerned about drug-testing people on unemployment and the "Stand your ground laws" to be far more threatening to the Bill of rights than whether children and people like myself with pre-existing conditions getting insurance (in my case skin cancer) affecting the "Bill of Rights".

[CAPHAVOC]

32. Floriduh!

Well you got that right. Especially the fishing laws. And what do you think ran me off from the GOP? Yep Patriot Act, DHS,TSA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Drug Testing. But more even than those, taking some college classes and discovering the Profs. are not really wild eyed liberal fanatics. Learning about critical thinking and fallacies. Also I favor Medicare for everyone and no pre-ex. I do not think ACA is the way to go. I favor help for the poor but not how it is being done now. Let me ask you this. Would you like the precedent set in ACA and then someday Rush Limbough gets elected President?
Rush has the control to run your life? That is a reason to be "paranoid." On the Martin Case I am holding my opinion until reality appears.

[drm604]

33. If Rush Limbaugh gets elected the ACA is one of the least of our worries.

Electing an idiot like that for President would be a disaster no matter what. Should we really put our efforts behind shoring up our country against the worst conceivable (and ridiculously improbable) leader, and in the process neuter government?

You said that you favor Medicare for all. How would that give hypothetical President Limbaugh less control over your life than the ACA would?

[CAPHAVOC]

34. I do like a lot of the ideas of the Democratic Party. I do not like the way the programs are

set up and run. It is a hodge podge. As to your question. Medicare is a government run payment scheme. ACA is the Government forcing citizens to enter a contract with a private for profit company. Repealed or not it would set precedent for even worse. Not shoring up just leaving be and rolling back some excess. Constitutional? We will see in June.

[drm604]

36. I don't see what it would be a precedent for.

Health care and health care insurance are unique. Everyone who lives long enough is going to need healthcare (and thus insurance) at some point or another. A mandate just assures that they actually pay for it, rather than dumping their costs on taxpayers or the insured. It's not like it would be a precedent that would allow government to force us to buy broccoli or fan belts or whatever.

[CAPHAVOC]

42. That is what some of the arguments were.

They were talking about direct and indirect taxes. Plenary powers and other things I do not know about. The precedent would be there has been no previous case like this. This case would rule future cases not related to health care or insurance. In fact the main thing seems to be this is not about health care at all. But insurance contracts. Getting the young people to pay for the old. Or in other words. Advance payment. They all seem to agree that Medicare for all would be Constitutional. The Lawyers were not too great or clear in my simple uninformed opinion. Neither was very persuasive.

[chknltl]

37. imo, we have 3 co-equal branches of government.....

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 07:55 PM - Edit history (1)

That would be, Congress, Senate and Executive branches. Below this is SCOTUS. They have been doing a power grab since the 19th century, case Marbury v Madison (forgive spelling). We The People hold the ultimate power in our democracy because we can elect and unelect those who would represent our needs. The SCOTUS is beyond this particular control. It was never intended to be above the three co-equal branches of government, a position it currently seems to be in.
One must ask oneself, do we really need 9 kings in charge of us?

Thom Hartmann had a great explanation of what I tried to explain above, I went to his webpage trying to find it for you but I was unsuccessful. Otoh, on his webpages was discussion that is relevant to the topic discussed in this thread, I urge you to check it out, (link below).

Btw. CAPHAVOC, It is good to see you, a recovering republican, here in the DU. We enrich each other with our diversity.


http://m.thomhartmann.com/blog/2012/03/today-begins-us-supreme-court-hearings-constitutionality-obamacare

[CAPHAVOC]

45. That is a good one

But the Congress House + Senate is one and the Executive (President) is two but the third is Judicial (SCOTUS). Seems like the first two have lost their collective minds and the 3rd is trying to give them some Thorazine for first aid...Lets hope it kicks in before it is too late. Maybe by some miracle everyone can get Medicare. A Single Payer.

[chknltl]

60. yes this is how i learned it too.

I do not believe that this was as it was intended. Setting that aside, I can not agree with the notion that in a government of by and for the people, a supposedly co-equal third piece of the system is more powerful than the other two.I want single payer as much as anyone here but imo, our democracy is an even bigger priority.

Here is how I see things: We the People elect our representatives to do our bidding. When they fail to do that, We The People can throw the bums out when the time comes. Regardless of how you or I feel about "Obama-care", law was passed by our Congress and our President. If We the People don't like this then it is up to us to throw the bums out and elect those who WILL do OUR bidding.

Not only is the SCOTUS beyond We The Peoples control, allowing them to overturn anything passed by Congress and signed into law by our POTUS grants them powers over our government.
This goes back to the early,1800s, the case of Marburry vs Madison. It has had scholarly debate since.

I am no scholar in these matters but imo what is happening here is a consolidation of power to the SCOTUS by the corporatists who control it. Their ultimate aim is to weaken President Obama in the next election by overturning Obama-care with the hopes of making it easier to get Romney into the POTUS position. Once he is there, a further consolidation of power within the SCOTUS can be had with the replacement of two moderates with two more corporatist judges.

I ask again, do We The People really need nine kings, instead of democracy-regardless of cost? This is the tradeoff as I see it if the SCOTUS overturns Obama-care.

[CAPHAVOC]

61. From what I know

The Judicial is an equal branch. To the Legislature and the Executive. The legislature has to write laws that are within the Constitution. The Court decides if the law is within the Constitution if it is challenged. In this case 26 of 50 states challenged it. The Executive enforces the laws through the administrative agencies. The Constitution can only be changed by an amendment ratified by 2/3 of the States. The President appoints the Judges who serve for life. That is called the balance of power. So yes. I do think they are needed. The Legislature has been trying to get away with all kine of shenanagins by passing Acts instead of amendments for years. But even old laws can be challenged in the court if a Plaintiff...that is the one filing the lawsuit) has what they call (standing)..that is an interest in the law. Also Amendments, Like the First, Second, and on, can be repealed and the whole Constitution can be changed if the States call for a new convention and rewrite it. They could throw the whole thing out and start over. They would need 34 states for that. I guess that is why it is called a living breathing document. So it is not set in stone and if enough people want to, it can be totally changed. Now Medicare has already been passed and is certified Constitutional. It can easily be expanded. No Problemo. But I personally favor the system we have over a Democracy. Hope that helps. I know it is confusing.

[chknltl]

63. sounds out of ballance to me.

Thank you for trying to help me understand this better. I am drawing off of memory of high school civics from decades ago and adding what seems sensible to my thinking. So I am still down to these three questions. 1. Where in the Constitution did the SCOTUS derive power to overturn Congress's legislation signed into Law by the POTUS? It seems to me that before Congress could pass such legislation over to the President, it would have to pass muster through Congress's own Constitutional scholars. 2. If such power is somewhere granted, doesn't that make one leg of the three legged government more powerful than the other two? And 3, if the SCOTUS does indeed have this uberpower then what recourse do We The People have when they go against our collective will?

[CAPHAVOC]

64. In the end

They can not. It just takes time. If enough are against this then they have to get involved and elect people to do what they want. BTW there are Bills to have the constitutionality of a law attached to every Bill. I am taking legal classes and it is very interesting. In the past there were much bigger fights between the citizens who wanted stronger Federal Power and those who want the Power in the hands of the States. I really like some of the history I have been learning about. Like the fight between FDR and the Supreme Court during the 30's. And the quote of Winston Churchill. "Americans always do the right thing. Once they try everything else" The Founders actually expected for the Constitution to be changed over time much more than it has been. I think it is an amazing document.

1. Federal power is enumerated in the Constitution. Limited and listed. Anything not specifically given to the Federal Government is reserved to the States and the individual.
2. It is not perfect. It is designed to have the 3 branches work against each other to balance it out. Now the Congress can pass a better solution.
3. Vote for the representative that will do what you want. Or run for office. Or file a lawsuit. Obama and the Democrats blew it with ACA. The Bill is a legal mess. From what I can tell they tried to stretch the commerce clause too far and did sloppy work writing the Bill.

Seems to me that we are in transition now. The ruling will be out in June. Plenty of time to make it an issue in the election. The Bill would not have been enforced until 2014 anyway. So get to work.

[chknltl]

68. thank you again for your patience.

I think I am getting this. So I gather that the SCOTUS is not granted a veto power over the combined actions of Congress and POTUS. Does this mean that the extent of their power is in the form of a ruling-a recommendation if you will?

I apologize for being obtuse sometimes, my mind always needs to boil things down to the simplest of terms and examples in order to best understand complexity.

I loved that quote you used by Churchill, never heard it before and I hope in this case he is right. My fear as I stated earlier is that the SCOTUS, under the direction of the corporations who are obviously influencing their decisions, are using their position to meddle in our political system.

To me, their obvious aim is for a consolidation of power, a power We The People can not touch. For me, that leaves us with a democracy overseen by 9 overseers. Overseers who are bought out by the highest bidders who need not even be American.

It all reminds me of movies we have seen where the good guy rides into a new town and discovers that the local sheriff is a crook totally in the pocket of the rich guy, the mayor powerless to stop him and the citizens fearful and suffering under the sheriff's tyrany.

I do hope that the SCOTUS does not hold and can never hold such power! I believe in government OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE. We have had many many of our fellow countrymen fight and die defending this basic notion. Our entire planet is ailing and imo., it will take ONLY a combined effort by the worlds true democracies if humanity can survive. (The corporatists will not do it, that's for damn sure.)

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Oh for fuck's sake. The Federal Govt can already put cancer grannies in prison for smoking a plant.

They already got their totalitarian and unlimited Federal Power, it's called the Drug War. The only place they still need to expand it is inside your pants, which is where Rick Santorum comes in.

[CAPHAVOC]

46. Hard to argue against that.

[jillan]

49. But it's okay for state governments to mandate women to have ultrasounds? What will be next from

your state government and how many things will they be able to mandate on its residents if they start with this?

Republicans Cannot have it both ways.

[laundry_queen]

57. Well, I'm enjoying my totalitarian healthcare

up here in Canada. I can see any doctor I want in any part of the country for free (at the point of service). I can make an appointment with my family doctor, get in the same day, and in 2 years I've only had to sit in the waiting room once - for 5 minutes. No co-pay. The government has no say on how my doctor practices medicine, and has no say on the treatments I receive. All my government does is pay the bill, the rest is between me and my doctor. When I needed elective surgery, there was very little wait. When 3 of my children were born by c-section, I was not shoved out of the hospital after 2 days, and when I did go home after 4-5 days, I had a public health nurse stop by to weigh the baby, make sure she was eating well and that she was not jaundiced.

When my dad needed a hip replacement and decided he wanted a newer revolutionary high tech treatment for more active adults instead, he simply travelled to where the specialist was located, had his hip done, and went home. His bill was the cost of a one night stay in a hotel the night before surgery.

Yes, I feel SO oppressed with my government health care. All that freedom of choice - how totalitarian! All that state-of-the-art care - how will I escape the tyranny? Knowing how my children will always have medical care as adults, no matter what illnesses they may have right now - will anyone stop the government control of health care?!

The US needs single payer. You deserve the same great care I have without worry of going bankrupt. Obamacare is not enough, but it will still be a sad day if it is deemed unconstitutional.

[CAPHAVOC]

65. Sounds good.

I hope we can get there. But are the providers self employed, or are they government employees? And is the plan funded by taxes like our Medicare...? I am not familiar with how it works. I have wondered if in Canada insurance companies run the health funding like they do here and in Obamacare. Personally I hope we expand our Medicare for all citizens not just the over 65 and disabled. I do not really like the term Single Payer. We should all pay what we can. But we should all have the same plan. Our system is a real mess.

[laundry_queen]

67. From what I understand

and I'm far from an expert, is that providers are private, all the government does is act like a non-profit insurer. For instance, my last doctor opened a clinic with his friend. It was a private clinic. He billed the BC government for services provided. Every service provided has a set fee ie: stitch up a small nick, $50. I'm not sure how hospitals work, I think the nurses and doctors work for the particular health authority that the hospital is in (Every province has several health authorities that run the medical services in the area) and the health authority bills the provincial plan for the services provided.

Also, the plan is generally funded by taxes, with the federal government giving transfer payments to each province. Each province runs their own system (that works within federal guildelines) and it's mostly funded by taxes, but some provinces have premiums for those who can pay (in BC I think it was $130/month for our family of 6 but I'm not sure b/c my ex's work paid it for him). Here in Alberta I don't pay any premiums.

And we do have private insurers here that people carryfor things like dentist/eyeglass/prescription coverage (not covered by the government for most people). Or if you want a private room with a tv. LOL. People mostly get that through their employer, otherwise it's very expensive. My ex pays close to $200/month to cover our kids for those things (he's self employed). I'm covered through my school for a whopping $100/year. But at least if we get seriously ill we won't go bankrupt. Although I do think dentist and prescription should be covered by our gov't insurance. Not everyone agrees.

[SidDithers]

3. And many "on the left" are willing to sacrifice those kids...

because ACA isn't the utopia of single-payer.



Sid

[Skidmore]

5. Energy better placed toward amending

And improving the law.

[Walk away]

7. It's disheartening. People that can't wait to throw 30,000,000 Americans under the bus...

Because they want Single Payer or nothing. What about all of the elderly who can finally afford to take their medications...drugs that mean life or death to them right now. I know people on Medicare who have actually had to cut their pills in two and take half their prescriptions.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Here

are 14 people (so far) +1 OP willing to do just that -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1002476222&info=1#recs

[ScreamingMeemie]

16. I want health insurance (that I am willing to pay for) for my son. I can't do that.

Companies will not cover children under their own policies anymore (it's a loophole in "no turning away kids with pre-existing conditions).

My son is currently uninsurable, under traditional methods. We have a "discount" health card that I pay dearly for and it's only temporary.

[eridani]

22. They will really be SOL if HCR is used as an excuse to eliminate Medicare entirely

http://www.pressherald.com/news/GOP-Medicare-plan-borrows-from-and-repeals-Obamas.html

But if Obama is re-elected and his health care law is upheld by the Supreme Court, Wyden sees Medicare exchanges and a premium support system as the basis for a deal to reduce health care costs. He said Democrats would be hard pressed to argue against the idea if it is working for people under 65 as a result of the health care overhaul.

[Enrique]

31. actually nearly everyone got behind the public option

which was a major compromise from single payer.

[Walk away]

54. Which will happen when Kucinich is elected President. nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. Don't worry. My kid's being sacrificed. But that's OK according to the people who think

this law did something for him.

[onehandle]

38. I see little chance of that part of HCR being struck down.

I think the requirement to buy insurance is the part that is most in jeopardy.

[Snake Alchemist]

6. What is the limit they can charge her for her pre-existing condition? nt

[spanone]

9. republicans couldn't care less....it's all about winning and getting Obama out of their white house

[Iliyah]

10. I'm not surprise

about the conservative justices at the US Supreme Court. They care more about the well to do than the general American public. Nevertheles, either way they go, which I have no faith in their decision in June 2012, the HCR law will survive probably even stronger. Government can make you get health coverage oh my, and if they can do that than they are make you jump off the bridge.

The conservative justices - Me society at its best.

[EFerrari]

11. But they can stll be denied care if their parents can't foot the deductible or copay. nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

15. OR their parents have pre-existing conditions. No coverage on their own for those kids. nt

[EFerrari]

21. We know health insurers are a bunch of criminals.

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2012, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

And while I'm glad some kids are being somewhat helped, I don't trust the industry and object to having it inflicted on the public.

[eridani]

23. Or if their parents miss an insurance payment for even one month n/t

[Walk away]

28. So there is no "pool" for people who cannot afford full premiums? nt

[EFerrari]

30. This is help for low income people who can't afford the premium

and there will be people who make too much to be helped that way AND don't make enough to use the insurance they are mandated to pay for.

[woo me with science]

35. Profit over lives. It really is that simple

when you allow corporate whores to design your health care system.

People need stop trying to put lipstick on this pig and demand Medicare for all.

[JVS]

70. Are you letting the good be the enemy of the inadequate?

[Jamaal510]

12. Im confused about this.

I have no idea whether it would be good or bad for Democrats and liberals if the mandate is ruled "unconstitutional". I heard some say that ruling would take away the Republicans' chief attack on Obama and would show more people how crucial the make-up of the SCOTUS is, while others say that more people would be insured under the mandate.

[Iliyah]

13. My understanding or the logic

of the mandate's purpose is eventually lower the cost of health care. More people who are insured, less we have to cover for non-insurers. Plus, it would save a lot of people and or families concerning bankruptcy. Plus it would also help cover people who have pre-existing conditions, and parents can keep their children on the insurance until they turn the age of 26. Also, RX cost is lowered, which helps the seniors.

Back when Medicare was being discussed, many, i.e. - goppers who was totally against it, calling it socialized medicine, well the same exact argument they have now. Many of the tea brats are on it right now, as well as Social Security. They were against it before they were for it. Now they love it. But the gopper's based still quite don't get it "Keep Government off my Medicare" - LOL

HCR is PRO-LIFE

[eridani]

24. Medical bankruptcies have decreased only slightly in MA, the model for the national law

Before the MA reform, 59% of bankruptcies were due to health care costs. Now 50% are.

[Walk away]

29. 9% is not a small amount. Especially to the people still in their homes. nt

[BlueDemKev]

44. That's a SUBSTANTIAL decrease.

[eridani]

47. Pretty much the same order of magnitude

And since the recession, the absolute number of bankruptcies has skyrocketed, meaning that there are vastly more bankruptcies than before reform. I guess everything's just peachy keen for the vast majority of people who will still go bankrupt despite having insurance.

[ScreamingMeemie]

14. Yes, one. My son can't get ANY (non-temporary) coverage because I have a pre-existing

condition and, to get around the law, insurance companies will no longer cover children on their own policies. Sorry, but it makes me sad (and VERY angry) that you would post something as stupid as "any questions?" Please learn the facts.

My son has "discounted" health care. Because that's all anyone is willing to do for him. There's millions of kids like him. Keep your fingers crossed that those kids remain healthy. Any questions???

Thank you.

[SoCalDem]

26. and any "healthy" kid is just ONE sports injury away from being denied for future coverage

Our son had a concussion (soccer)..knee/ankle surgery (soccer), and a fainting episode (football practice @100+ degrees dehydration).

he was otherwise healthy, but as he got older he was denied coverage from any applied for and had to accept a job he did not particularly "love", so he could get coverage. his wife is self-employed and had no coverage, so he had to compromise and put his own business on the back burner..

[jtuck004]

19. Assuming their parents can afford the insurance in the first place. With 25 million

people looking for work, or enough that they can pay for a house and food, more working poor now than ever before, that's not a given. On the other hand, the expected 22 million customers, at $1500 or more a year each, a 30% profit on $33,000,000,000 NEW dollars, business that is being given them after forcing taxpayers to buy, means the insurance companies will be doing just fine. (Think not? Look at their stock prices...).

I did notice that's not a black face, which makes it even more likely that the kid would just die, and the bill does little to address that. And that kid probably won't be smiling so sweetly. Thinking a bit more about that lately.

We shall see what happens, but health care costs continue to rise faster than we can pay for them and that might make this kerfuffle more of a distraction than a solution. Without a more socialized health care system there will be millions of people who will never, ever get even a basic level of care, and millions more who will be denied what they expected to receive in the future, with or without this bill.

Or SCOTUS may make it all moot. Waiting...

[ProgressiveATL]

20. Conservatives were for a "socialist" single-payer solution in 1989

As recently as 1989, conservatives were for a "socialist" single-payer solution too:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/why-the-right-turned-its-back-on-the-individual-mandate.html

“There is an implicit contract between households in society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and does not have the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. Healthcare is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services – even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab … A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract.”

Two-thirds of Americans support Medicare-for-all: http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/

"The more people know about single-payer, the more likely they are to support it. We see this pattern when we compare the “jury” results with poll results, and we see it when we compare polls that show high levels of support for single-payer with those that don’t."

And by 2033, health insurance premiums will surpass household income: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=155840

It's time for single-payer.

[BlueDemKev]

43. Yeah, but that was before the Democrats supported it, also.

[Iliyah]

25. Honestly

I have a feeling that the O Administration knew this type of discussion was going to happen and anyone who plays attention to the US Supreme Court knew the ideology of the justices, especially the 5 conservatives, and I'm guessing that they are fully equipt to handle it.

By the time the decision is made in June, the GOP/tea brats will probably look like selfish, uncaring people because right now thats how they look to the majoirty of the American people.

[EFerrari]

41. Ironically, that's how defenders of this insurance industry giveaway look

to the 27 million Americans who will remain uninsured should the law stand.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Kick!

and Rec!

[just1voice]

50. Yes I have a question? Do you know how people buy insurance?

because if you did you would know that there is NO WAY IN HELL 17 million children will be able to get their parents/guardians to buy them unaffordable health insurance in a corrupt, for-profit health care system.

Exploiting sick children is SICK.

[spanone]

53. your concerns are duly noted. denying sick children coverage is inhumane

[arthritisR_US]

56. +1!

[EFerrari]

58. You conflate "coverage" with health care. n/t

[arthritisR_US]

55. TY! It's important to not lose sight of what

matters.

[great white snark]

59. K&R for those who missed this.

And for those who would turn away because it's all or nothing.

[CBGLuthier]

66. Instead they can be reamed by an insurance company until their benefits run out and then die

Some fucking improvement.